Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Bureaucrats Don't "Think Different"
owlgorithm writes "Apple's new store in Montreal has three parking meters on the street in front of it. The city is in the middle of a campaign to reduce downtown parking. In Apple's ever-conscientious attempt to improve design, they offered to reimburse the city for the parking meters and their revenue if the city would remove them. Answer: Non — because 'We've never done it before, so we can't.'"
SlAshDot Guffaw Dept.
You know it's a Slow newsday when "We've never done it before, so we can't." by Montreal burros constitutes news because it includes Apple.
Certainly they can't be ... nooooo ... can't be ... they're suggesting they've never accepted money to
change the way something is done or not done? What next, Gérald Tremblay caught on camera
stating he's giving up his Treo?
Next up: Microsoft's Power bill - 10,000 PC's running at the same time, is Redmond driving global warming?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The meters are there to reduce the number of parked cars, not for revenue. Apple is offering money, not a solution to overcrowded streets.
And this is a story how? Why should a city remove meters because the business is Apple. If Apple doesn't want to deal with the meters they shouldn't have put the store there.
problem solved
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
he could also stand there looking all sullen and geek chic.
The solution is to stop worrying about parking meters.
Instead, go out and get pissed at the bars on Rue Crescent and Rue Bishop, and then close out the evening leering at peelers in one (or several) of Montreal's legendary tittie bars.
C'mon Apple, think outside the box a little.
This is not news. This is not funny. This is not even mildly interesting. Check the Firehose again editors -- there must be a few tidbits in there that don't go against your personal beliefs and would make better stories to put up front than this lame pos.
The quote "We've never done it before, so we can't." isn't attributed to anyone in the article, I highly doubt it was ever said. Sounds to me like the writer injecting some op-ed in to this supposed news piece. Should it really be cited on /.'s front page in a way that makes it sound like that was an actual reason given?
Now that it's published, they had better hope they never get their way. Bill Gates will pay someone to park some nasty clunker right in front and do various offensive and repulsive things. If you don't believe me, just look at the posts around here.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
That "news" story isn't quoting Montreal bureaucrats. It's putting words in their mouths to make a (stupid) point. All the writer knows is that the city refused - they don't actually know why, and there's no sign they actually asked anyone.
Parking meters, as the writer did note, are designed not to collect a little revenue, but to keep parking turning over quickly so more people can share fewer parking spots. "No Parking" signs don't replace them where they're needed (like in front of stores like Apple's) because parking is appropriate there, just not unlimited.
This is a stupid story by a stupid writer. Published by a stupid Slashdot editor.
--
make install -not war
No, that's more cars on the roads, circling around in search for a parking spot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not sure you should judge Canadians by the actions of the Québécois. They are distinct, after all, and should be laughed at as a separate group.
I can hear it now:
:)
"When you join government, you get st00pid!"
"Bureaucrats can't see past their own red taped noses!"
It's not confined to just government, folks. Business has it's fair share of inefficiency and stupidity. My favorite example of this was when I had a long contract at a Fortune 500 company away from home. They paid for an apartment for me to live in, but I saw no reason why I should expense my meals, even though it was allowed. My reasoning was, "I'm going to eat whether I'm here or at home. Why should they pay for it." This saved the company a few thousand dollars over six months. At one point, though, I wanted to expense something odd: boarding my cat for the weekend while I traveled. My reasoning was, "I have no friends here who would take care of the cat, unlike at home, so the company should pay." The refused, saying it wasn't justifiable, even though it was only $50 or so. After that I expensed all of my meals.
To add insult to injury, the entire 3 year long project I was involved in was shelved and started over soon after that, wasting around $60 million. This wasn't the first (or last) time I saw a business waste millions of dollars. I think of these things any time a libertarian says, "Business can do things more efficiently!"
TFA is an editorial, not an article. It is the opinion of the Montreal Gazette. No bureaucrat ever said "We've never done if before, so we can't." The quote was made up to make a point in the editorial. It's not real.
If you want to read the real article, go to the source (sorry, it is en francais. Run it through the Babelfish if you are desperate.)
I don't disagree that the city is being a bit obstinate, but I can see why they wouldn't want to change streetfronts on Apple's request. If they do it for them, they'll have to do it for every other downtown storefront. Besides, and I am not exaggerating, the $35,000 Apple is promising probably wouldn't even cover the cost of tasking a union city crew to remove the meters, rebuild the sidewalk and put the meters someplace else.
It is ironic that they very objectives that municipalities set for programs of Smart Growth very often result in precisely the opposite effects, increasing or exacerbating the undesirable elements that they seek to control. For example, in Portland Oregon they have filled in left turn pockets with planter boxes, installed "speed tables" and other "traffic calming" obstacle courses (if you were in a hurry would you be happy about having to slow down to navigate an obstacle course in your vehicle? Would that make you calmer once you exited the course or would you romp on the gas in anger and frustration to make up for lost time as you entered the freeway or the main traffic corridor?), removed parking spaces, provided too few parking spaces, and done many other misguided things in pursuit of the goal of "getting people out of their cars". After 15+ years what has been the result of these policies? Snarled traffic, increased traffic, traffic idling in slow speed stop and go driving, increased smog from more vehicles operating in the most inefficient speed and rpm range for the internal combustion engine. Basically every problem that they hopped to solve with their "Smart Growth" has in fact been made worse or even created new problems (i.e. dramatically increased smog) on top of the old ones. Portland is *worse* off because of Smart Growth and it would have been better off if they simply done nothing or at least abstained from some of the more no sense recommendations of the "Smart Growth" activists and consultants.
It all boils down to basic economics. People will do what they want and live how they want and you cannot tell them, "The elite smart growth planners are going to tell you what it is that you *really* want (i.e. less parking) and then enforce it upon you against your will." That type of centrally planned, command and control economic or social policy has not worked and will never work. It is the height of hubris and arrogance to presume that you can change other people's lives and preferences through mandates, laws, and enforcement actions. If people cannot work within the system then they find ways around it and the economic results of the workarounds are often *highly* suboptimal resulting in a Dead Weight Loss to the economy.
Tightened it up a bit more for you.
Serve Gonk.
"Non -- because 'We've never done it before, so we can't.'"
If only they had taken that attitude when they were first offered the chance to breathe.
from TFA: he idea of parking meters, besides revenue, is to keep people from parking on the street all day. The borough could do that simply by making the three-car stretch into a No Parking zone. The city is, after all, trying to reduce the number of parking spots downtown.
That is, the author of the article is making some wild-ass guess about it. The Montreal Gazette is hardly a bastion of responsible journalism. Plus, he's obviously wrong - the city of Montreal never puts up one no-parking sign when 3 or 4 will suffice.
Besides all that, I fail to see how it would make much difference either way, given that the rue Sainte Catherine is already a parking lot most of the time.
"We've never done it before, so we can't."
There is no source for the quote in TFA, and TFA is the only article I can find on the subject with the quote. I believe this is what we call "hyperbole."
Now why wouldn't the city want to play ball? As TFA and the summary say, the entire point of the parking meters is to reduce downtown parking to begin with; it's not about the revenue, it's about the traffic (always a problem in major metropolitan centers built well before the invention of the automobile). If anything, we should be applauding the local government here for not taking the money and instead sticking by their original intent. All too many such governments would have taken the money and turned the other way.
If anybody is failing to "think different," it's Apple themselves, who are trying to take the tried-and-true easy way out of essentially bribing a government to get their way. Something different would be to find a way to encourage all those hipster Apple fans to come to their store by, say, public transportation (save gas, ease traffic congestion, etc.).
Would the story have the same "Boo government, yay capitalists!" slant if we were talking about a Sony store?
If the city officials allow Apple to do this, then they must allow other companies to do this as well. So, imagine if a significant number of companies pay for this "privilege", and the number of street-parking slots is reduced by 50% (or whatever fraction you deem to be significant), can you see the problem this would cause?
Stupid article and stupid writer.
It would be nice if they could demonstrate that other cities have accepted such an offer - keep in mind that the Gazette is Montréal's leading English language, right-leaning paper. The sense that they are also delivering a slight poke to the French spoken city officials is unmistakable.
At least read the summary.
That's not the point of this whole exercise. The parking meters and the parked cars do not conform to Apple's "vision" of their store, so they want them gone.
They don't want any cars out front, whether or not it belongs to their customers.
bah, unless your off the grid your power is the same as everyone else's. It's a interconnected grid, if you remove your PC's their not going to turn down that hydro plant first, their going to turn down the plants with the highest incremental cost, which is probably a natural gas turbine plant (maybe in Pennsylvania.) IE any excess power in your area will be pushed to the next city over, etc, etc to a high cost producer.
kudos to your Tax dollars for producing a good source, but your power is just as dirty/clean as everyone else's, turn down that usage.
By that logic, if I've never died before, I am immortal.
Although...the highlander had to die first to become immortal.
I'd trust the highlander more than Canadians.
Transmission losses mean that even with wheeling, the power from my neck of the woods never reaches the East Coast. You can look on my local utility's distribution page and see where the power goes (much to north california and seattle)
After 15+ years what has been the result of these policies? Snarled traffic, increased traffic, traffic idling in slow speed stop and go driving, increased smog from more vehicles operating in the most inefficient speed and rpm range for the internal combustion engine.
Frankly, my friend, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you're so pampered as to think that Portland traffic is ever "snarled."
Try driving in Atlanta for a couple of years before complaining about traffic. Portland is paradise in comparison; I tell you this from experience. You don't know what snarled or stop and go driving are like until it takes you 45 minutes to go 10 miles on a 8- to 10-lane interstate every damned day.
I've been shocked by the total lack of aggression in drivers here. They usually drive at or below the speed limit (like the law requires) instead of tailgating and trying to run off the road anyone doing less than 10-15 over the speed limit like they do in Atlanta. People here are also a LOT friendlier about letting people over to merge. As much pooh-poohing as you do of traffic calming devices, I seriously suggest that you live in an area that doesn't have them before dismissing the idea that traffic engineering can modify the behaviors of drivers.
There is a VERY marked difference in aggression between Portland and Atlanta, and I suspect that difference in how traffic is engineered here has something to do with it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
APPLE wants to put the parking meters in the basket
Sara Champagne
The Press
The APPLE giant, who projects to open his doors with the downtown area of Montreal soon, tried in vain to make remove parking meters in front of his future store. Concerned of its image design, the American firm offered to the Town of Montreal the equivalent of the receipts of these apparatuses considered to be not very aesthetic, is nearly 35 000$ per five years, learned the Press.
Waste of time and effort. The district of City-Marie, who confirms to have received the demand for last March, refused this preferential treatment considered to be "unacceptable". The three electronic terminals, located opposite 1321 Sainte-Catherine Ouest, and close to the Ogilvy house, are thus there to remain.
"We are opened with certain compromises, as to transform a terminal of parking doubles in simple terminal, but from there to remove them completely there is a margin which one cannot cross", explains Jacques-Alain Lavallée, in charge of communication of City-Marie. It adds that APPLE Canada did not give sign of life since this end not-to receive, also approved by Stationnement of Montreal, which manages the spaces tariffed on street, to 3$ the hour, the downtown area.
The arrival in Montreal of the future flagship APPLE became an open secret in the world of the aces of data processing and the Mac products. The room, rented in the District of the museums, has a surface of 9300 square feet, and rises on two stages, with a mezzanine out of glass. The place is occupied at present by the Mens shop, which moves its home in November, boulevard De Western Maisonneuve, close to the street Stanley.
"I know that APPLE already visited the room with architectural plans, known as Boujmada, manager of Lie, who confirms to have yielded his lease to the data-processing firm. But I do not know when their opening is envisaged."
Motus, stops bent!
Faithful to its tradition, APPLE Canada did not want to comment on its establishment in Montreal, nor the presence of the terminals on the front of its room. The giant did not indicate either that following the refusal, it planned to find a site more "aesthetic" for his new store.
"APPLE never makes comments on its projects of businesses, explains the spokesman of the company in Quebec, Jean-Guy Rens. We speak only about our products. There will be thus no comments."
According to information's on MacQuébec and APPLE insider, of the sites of bitten APPLE products, the store of Montreal will open its doors the next summer or with the autumn 2008, and will become the shop headlight of the giant in Canada, with the image of APPLE Store of the 5e Avenue, in Manhattan.
On his side, the spokesman of the company Parking of Montreal, Michel Philibert, adds that the parkings tariffed on street are used to ensure the rotation of the vehicles, and by the fact even a bearing of the customers which attend the trade.
"I think that the district did not have to study a long time the demand for APPLE before refusing to withdraw the terminals, Mr. Phillibert says. These spaces belong to the public domain, and cannot become of exclusive use. That is not done quite simply."
Not bad for Babelfish.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Hydroelectric is the most expensive form of electricity generation, followed closedly by wind power, then nuclear, with gas and coal falling way, way down the list.
The main benefit of hydroelectric power is that it can be stopped and started so quickly. The coal and gas plants take the best part of an hour to ramp up or down, so you use the hydroelectric plan to carry the burden until the more efficient (and slow, cumbersome) plants come up to speed.
Of course, if you live in a country that has to import most of its coal from Australia, especially if you live in a mountainout region with a high annual rainfall, the story may be different.
The high cost of nuclear power is what is driving the Howard government to consider "carbon tax" on all coal and gas fired power plants, so that the nuclear plants that Little Johnny wants so desperately can be built by commercial interests without extensive government subsidies.
All of this is extremely off topic, of course. I expect the burough's true motivation for denying Apple's request to convert three parking meters to a "no parking" zone is the loss of parking fine income.
Apple doesn't want to remove the parking meters so their customers can park for free. They want to remove the meters so that no one can park in front of their store at all! They want to turn the three spots into a no-parking zone and offered to reimburse the city for the revenue lost by the three spots, while simultaneously helping with the city's goal of fewer parked cars downtown.
As a Canadian I find this article and half the comments about it kind of offensive.
... well let's just say it is "unique" and quite different from the rest of Canada so you are tarring all of Canada with a brush that should be meant only for a small minority. It's also offensively implies that "Canada is doing something wrong here" or that we are unimaginative, backward etc. when in fact the reverse is the case.
In the first place this is Quebec, which is
The fact that a company could not bribe a municipal government to go against it's own bylaws and provide special treatment to a high-end retail establishment is something to celebrate, not berate.
I am a big Apple fan, but this is really a kind of outrageous request. If this kind of stuff is common in the United States, well then I feel sorry for you. Horay for any government that is above the petty manipulations of the business community I say.
Lastly, as others have mentioned, how much more of a boring non-story could there be?
Actually, hydroeletric is one of the cheapest sources of energy. The facilities last way longer that the alternatives, there's no much personnel involved in operations and there's no fuels to be bought. Usually, operating cost per Kw/h is one quarter of that from coal. Really, I have no idea where you got this idea of hydro being the most expensive source of energy, it's one of the silliest comments I've ever seen here.
Your ad could be here!